My 10 minute short film at DVinfo.net

Nick Robinson · January 3rd, 2005, 01:04 PM

I posted this a while ago but the quality was really bad. Here is a new version in a much higher quality divx format. It is 55 megs so youll want broadband. Please right click + save as.

http://www.doubleitproductions.com/10till.avi

Rhett Allen · January 3rd, 2005, 02:05 PM

What in the world possessed you to make it a Divx? One of the least compatible movie formats out there? Well I managed to find a player for it and watched it.
Not a bad little flick but the audio was distracting as hell. It keeps going up and down and sometimes it sounded narrated and others you couldn't hear what they were saying and still other times the gain was cranked up so high that the white noise was almost louder than the background noise.
Video-wise, the camera movement was a nice effect but it was a little overkill at times. Almost looked sloppy. Maybe a bigger tripod or a heavier camera to make it more fluid and not quite as jerky.
Editing. I thought it was well done. One thing that bothered me (besides the 3 minutes of opening credits) is that the placement of the credits and the "Clock" were not consistent. They were out of alignment with each other but not enough to look intentional. It just looked like they were in the same general area but shifted a few pixels up and down and back and forth each time something came on screen.
Story, I didn't really know what was going on. I mean there is only so much character development you can get into 10 minutes so that's not it, but like someone said in your last post of this, you didn't show me the drugs or money and I didn't know why this guy would have them. I'll watch it again later and see if I missed something but don't be surprised if you get even fewer responses this time. Going from a WMV to a Divx AVI may make it harder for people to watch.

Nick Robinson · January 3rd, 2005, 02:16 PM

Hm. I thought divx was pretty universal? Its a codec everyone should have if you watch movies online, imo. What would you suggest to encode it in? I want it to be no more than 60 megs. I tried quick time but it was 100 megs which would kill my server so quickly. Any help in encoding would be really graet becauseI know nothing about it.

Rhett Allen · January 3rd, 2005, 02:47 PM

There are a bunch of Divx movies out there but most of them are from the bootleg movie industry. The other problem is that there seem to be about a dozen different Divx variations and not all Divx players will play them all. I actually have the Divx Codec installed on my laptop and QuickTime will play the video but not the audio. I ended up using a player called "VLC" which I have also used for viewing HDV video and it worked well.

mpeg-4 might give you good results as it is quickly replacing mpeg-1 as the universal standard.

I thought the "quality" of your encoding looked very good, I just don't know how many people will have the Divx codec installed. I think the last WMP to include it was 6.4 or something like that.

What QuickTime format did you try? You can adjust the settings and do 2-pass VBR to decrease the file size but I don't know what format you tried.

Rob Lohman · January 4th, 2005, 04:23 AM

Rhett: DiVX = XviD = mpeg-4. DiVX is very market penetrated, even
outside of the "illegal" scene! Lots and lots of people have it
installed. WMP never came with (real) DiVX and probably never
will, however it came with an unhacked version of the older
DiVX 3 standard which you indeed do not want to use. A current
version (version 5) is the way to go.

In response to your audio problem, usually the audio is encoded
with some other AUDIO codec like MP3 (or another MPEG-1 audio
layer) or AC3 etc. You will need the proper codecs and filters.

The easiest way to get everything in one go is to get Gordian Knot:

http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/g...p.exe?download

2-pass VBR with QuickTime? What codec allows for 2-pass VBR
in QT?

Rhett Allen · January 4th, 2005, 12:57 PM

As it turns out I may have been having weirdness with my QuickTime player which didn't let the audio play because it was mp3 audio, which QT will play.
As far as DiVX goes, I am aware that it is a "version" of mpeg-4 but there are lots of "versions" of mpeg-4 out there so as not to be confused with the current mpeg-4 standard used today.

As far as 2-pass VBR. Quicktime offers MPEG-1, MPEG-2, Sorenson Video and I believe MPEG-4 as well. You can use Cleaner, Compressor or Squeeze to compress it (although there may be more, those are the ones that I have).

I didn't mean for the DiVX comment to come off quite like that, exactly, but WMP comes installed on every PC and QuickTime comes installed on every Mac some PC's and almost any software or magazine CD but what does the DiVX player or codec come on? Nothing. That's why I said it was a bad choice, not because of the quality.

Nick Robinson · January 4th, 2005, 12:59 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Rhett Allen : As it turns out I may have been having weirdness with my QuickTime player which didn't let the audio play because it was mp3 audio.
As far as DiVX goes, I am aware that it is a "version" of mpeg-4 but there are lots of "versions" of mpeg-4 out there so as not to be confused with the current mpeg-4 standard used today.

As far as 2-pass VBR. Quicktime offers MPEG-1, MPEG-2, Sorenson Video and I believe MPEG-4 as well. You can use Cleaner, Compressor or Squeeze to compress it (although there may be more, those are the ones that I have).

I didn't mean for the DiVX comment to come off quite like that, exactly, but WMP comes installed on every PC and QuickTime comes installed on every Mac some PC's and almost any software or magazine CD but what does the DiVX player or codec come on? Nothing. That's why I said it was a bad choice, not because of the quality. -->>>

Yah I agree that it may be better only because they are pre-installed on all computers. But divx gives a better quality and lower size,justhave to deal with the hassle of the install.

Rabi Syid · January 6th, 2005, 02:53 PM

Very good! what was it shot with?

Nick Robinson · January 6th, 2005, 02:56 PM

Shot ona DVX100a in 24p.

Rabi Syid · January 6th, 2005, 02:58 PM

well directed. well pieced. some bits could of been better but i take my hat off to you.

Nick Robinson · January 6th, 2005, 03:05 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Rabi Syid : well directed. well pieced. some bits could of been better but i take my hat off to you. -->>>

Thanks a lot. The next one will be even better!

Thomas Langdale · January 6th, 2005, 05:55 PM

The action scenes were well edited. I liked the flow and the acting was also quite good. I found it a bit grainy which was distracting at times but the movie itself was well put together.

Good work

Nick Robinson · January 6th, 2005, 06:10 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Thomas Langdale : The action scenes were well edited. I liked the flow and the acting was also quite good. I found it a bit grainy which was distracting at times but the movie itself was well put together.

Good work -->>>

Yah it was a bit too grainy. I didnt light the background well enough, but i know how to fix that for the next one :)

Michael Bernstein · January 6th, 2005, 07:16 PM

Nice.

Problems: Sound, sound, sound!--volume level, timbre (or equalization), and stereo image placement were at odds with what I saw on the screen, and thus very disorienting. And while the dolly shots were lovely, they were incongruous with the too-shaky camera work. The fatigue of watching your piece labor under the sound and camera shake problems on my laptop's LCD made an interesting movie hard to watch.

Also: I didn't think the heavy tints worked in practice, although I liked the idea. Subjectively, the blacks felt washed out; there wasn't enough contrast. In the bathroom, the skin tone of the girl stood out in a jarring way. Perhaps this worked better on a CRT? Perhaps this is just me?

Successes: The dolly work was nice in and of itself. Editing was very nice, although I too had problems following the story well enough to be engaged, and I don't know if this was a problem with the editing, the story, or the camera work. Despite the shakyness, both shot selection and composition were generally good by me. I liked the music you chose and when you chose to use it. Blood effects were rather good, although I'd hoped for a smear or splatter on the wall behind the toilet (a quibble!).

Overall: ambitious, and promising. I look forward to your next one.

Michael

Nick Robinson · January 6th, 2005, 07:26 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Michael Bernstein : Nice.

Problems: Sound, sound, sound!--volume level, timbre (or equalization), and stereo image placement were at odds with what I saw on the screen, and thus very disorienting. And while the dolly shots were lovely, they were incongruous with the too-shaky camera work. The fatigue of watching your piece labor under the sound and camera shake problems on my laptop's LCD made an interesting movie hard to watch.

Also: I didn't think the heavy tints worked in practice, although I liked the idea. Subjectively, the blacks felt washed out; there wasn't enough contrast. In the bathroom, the skin tone of the girl stood out in a jarring way. Perhaps this worked better on a CRT? Perhaps this is just me?

Successes: The dolly work was nice in and of itself. Editing was very nice, although I too had problems following the story well enough to be engaged, and I don't know if this was a problem with the editing, the story, or the camera work. Despite the shakyness, both shot selection and composition were generally good by me. I liked the music you chose and when you chose to use it. Blood effects were rather good, although I'd hoped for a smear or splatter on the wall behind the toilet (a quibble!).

Overall: ambitious, and promising. I look forward to your next one.

Michael -->>>

Thanks a lot . I pushed my limits in every way, and while it may have made some errors stand out, i learned a hellovalot :) .

I liked the tinting idea as well and it didnt come out exactly how i had hoped . As you said - it was a contrast issue. I need a good book about dramatic lighting i think, as my knowelge in the area is sub par.

Audio was a big issue from the begining since we were shooting on location at that club and we had to ADR a lot of the dialouge. From now on i am going to pay a LOT more attention to sound. The story wasnt all there either.

I wanted to do a splatter shot as well, but we have to sign a contract saying we wont use guns (This was a school project). I figured id gone over board enough.

I was experimenting a lot in this film, and as a result there are two different styles in the film whcih wasnt justified in furthering story - it was, in all honesty, me just experimenting.

Again thanks for al your input. The next one will be out the begining of April.

January 3rd, 2005, 01:04 PM	#1
Nick Robinson New Boot Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 18	My 10 minute short film I posted this a while ago but the quality was really bad. Here is a new version in a much higher quality divx format. It is 55 megs so youll want broadband. Please right click + save as. http://www.doubleitproductions.com/10till.avi

January 4th, 2005, 04:23 AM	#5
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	Rhett: DiVX = XviD = mpeg-4. DiVX is very market penetrated, even outside of the "illegal" scene! Lots and lots of people have it installed. WMP never came with (real) DiVX and probably never will, however it came with an unhacked version of the older DiVX 3 standard which you indeed do not want to use. A current version (version 5) is the way to go. In response to your audio problem, usually the audio is encoded with some other AUDIO codec like MP3 (or another MPEG-1 audio layer) or AC3 etc. You will need the proper codecs and filters. The easiest way to get everything in one go is to get Gordian Knot: http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/g...p.exe?download 2-pass VBR with QuickTime? What codec allows for 2-pass VBR in QT? __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

January 6th, 2005, 05:55 PM	#12
Thomas Langdale New Boot Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 13	The action scenes were well edited. I liked the flow and the acting was also quite good. I found it a bit grainy which was distracting at times but the movie itself was well put together. Good work __________________ Thomas

January 6th, 2005, 07:16 PM	#14
Michael Bernstein Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Brooklyn, NY Posts: 114	Nice. Problems: Sound, sound, sound!--volume level, timbre (or equalization), and stereo image placement were at odds with what I saw on the screen, and thus very disorienting. And while the dolly shots were lovely, they were incongruous with the too-shaky camera work. The fatigue of watching your piece labor under the sound and camera shake problems on my laptop's LCD made an interesting movie hard to watch. Also: I didn't think the heavy tints worked in practice, although I liked the idea. Subjectively, the blacks felt washed out; there wasn't enough contrast. In the bathroom, the skin tone of the girl stood out in a jarring way. Perhaps this worked better on a CRT? Perhaps this is just me? Successes: The dolly work was nice in and of itself. Editing was very nice, although I too had problems following the story well enough to be engaged, and I don't know if this was a problem with the editing, the story, or the camera work. Despite the shakyness, both shot selection and composition were generally good by me. I liked the music you chose and when you chose to use it. Blood effects were rather good, although I'd hoped for a smear or splatter on the wall behind the toilet (a quibble!). Overall: ambitious, and promising. I look forward to your next one. Michael __________________ Michael Bernstein, actor & film maker. 10 films in 10 weeks: www.amplecatnap.com

January 3rd, 2005, 02:05 PM	#2
Rhett Allen Major Player Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Plano, TX Posts: 607	What in the world possessed you to make it a Divx? One of the least compatible movie formats out there? Well I managed to find a player for it and watched it. Not a bad little flick but the audio was distracting as hell. It keeps going up and down and sometimes it sounded narrated and others you couldn't hear what they were saying and still other times the gain was cranked up so high that the white noise was almost louder than the background noise. Video-wise, the camera movement was a nice effect but it was a little overkill at times. Almost looked sloppy. Maybe a bigger tripod or a heavier camera to make it more fluid and not quite as jerky. Editing. I thought it was well done. One thing that bothered me (besides the 3 minutes of opening credits) is that the placement of the credits and the "Clock" were not consistent. They were out of alignment with each other but not enough to look intentional. It just looked like they were in the same general area but shifted a few pixels up and down and back and forth each time something came on screen. Story, I didn't really know what was going on. I mean there is only so much character development you can get into 10 minutes so that's not it, but like someone said in your last post of this, you didn't show me the drugs or money and I didn't know why this guy would have them. I'll watch it again later and see if I missed something but don't be surprised if you get even fewer responses this time. Going from a WMV to a Divx AVI may make it harder for people to watch.

January 3rd, 2005, 02:16 PM	#3
Nick Robinson New Boot Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 18	Hm. I thought divx was pretty universal? Its a codec everyone should have if you watch movies online, imo. What would you suggest to encode it in? I want it to be no more than 60 megs. I tried quick time but it was 100 megs which would kill my server so quickly. Any help in encoding would be really graet becauseI know nothing about it.

January 3rd, 2005, 02:47 PM	#4
Rhett Allen Major Player Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Plano, TX Posts: 607	There are a bunch of Divx movies out there but most of them are from the bootleg movie industry. The other problem is that there seem to be about a dozen different Divx variations and not all Divx players will play them all. I actually have the Divx Codec installed on my laptop and QuickTime will play the video but not the audio. I ended up using a player called "VLC" which I have also used for viewing HDV video and it worked well. mpeg-4 might give you good results as it is quickly replacing mpeg-1 as the universal standard. I thought the "quality" of your encoding looked very good, I just don't know how many people will have the Divx codec installed. I think the last WMP to include it was 6.4 or something like that. What QuickTime format did you try? You can adjust the settings and do 2-pass VBR to decrease the file size but I don't know what format you tried.

January 4th, 2005, 12:57 PM	#6
Rhett Allen Major Player Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Plano, TX Posts: 607	As it turns out I may have been having weirdness with my QuickTime player which didn't let the audio play because it was mp3 audio, which QT will play. As far as DiVX goes, I am aware that it is a "version" of mpeg-4 but there are lots of "versions" of mpeg-4 out there so as not to be confused with the current mpeg-4 standard used today. As far as 2-pass VBR. Quicktime offers MPEG-1, MPEG-2, Sorenson Video and I believe MPEG-4 as well. You can use Cleaner, Compressor or Squeeze to compress it (although there may be more, those are the ones that I have). I didn't mean for the DiVX comment to come off quite like that, exactly, but WMP comes installed on every PC and QuickTime comes installed on every Mac some PC's and almost any software or magazine CD but what does the DiVX player or codec come on? Nothing. That's why I said it was a bad choice, not because of the quality.

January 4th, 2005, 12:59 PM	#7
Nick Robinson New Boot Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 18	<<<-- Originally posted by Rhett Allen : As it turns out I may have been having weirdness with my QuickTime player which didn't let the audio play because it was mp3 audio. As far as DiVX goes, I am aware that it is a "version" of mpeg-4 but there are lots of "versions" of mpeg-4 out there so as not to be confused with the current mpeg-4 standard used today. As far as 2-pass VBR. Quicktime offers MPEG-1, MPEG-2, Sorenson Video and I believe MPEG-4 as well. You can use Cleaner, Compressor or Squeeze to compress it (although there may be more, those are the ones that I have). I didn't mean for the DiVX comment to come off quite like that, exactly, but WMP comes installed on every PC and QuickTime comes installed on every Mac some PC's and almost any software or magazine CD but what does the DiVX player or codec come on? Nothing. That's why I said it was a bad choice, not because of the quality. -->>> Yah I agree that it may be better only because they are pre-installed on all computers. But divx gives a better quality and lower size,justhave to deal with the hassle of the install.

January 6th, 2005, 02:53 PM	#8
Rabi Syid Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: location Posts: 68	Very good! what was it shot with?

January 6th, 2005, 02:56 PM	#9
Nick Robinson New Boot Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 18	Shot ona DVX100a in 24p.

January 6th, 2005, 02:58 PM	#10
Rabi Syid Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: location Posts: 68	well directed. well pieced. some bits could of been better but i take my hat off to you.

January 6th, 2005, 03:05 PM	#11
Nick Robinson New Boot Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 18	<<<-- Originally posted by Rabi Syid : well directed. well pieced. some bits could of been better but i take my hat off to you. -->>> Thanks a lot. The next one will be even better!

January 6th, 2005, 06:10 PM	#13
Nick Robinson New Boot Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 18	<<<-- Originally posted by Thomas Langdale : The action scenes were well edited. I liked the flow and the acting was also quite good. I found it a bit grainy which was distracting at times but the movie itself was well put together. Good work -->>> Yah it was a bit too grainy. I didnt light the background well enough, but i know how to fix that for the next one :)

January 6th, 2005, 07:26 PM	#15
Nick Robinson New Boot Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 18	<<<-- Originally posted by Michael Bernstein : Nice. Problems: Sound, sound, sound!--volume level, timbre (or equalization), and stereo image placement were at odds with what I saw on the screen, and thus very disorienting. And while the dolly shots were lovely, they were incongruous with the too-shaky camera work. The fatigue of watching your piece labor under the sound and camera shake problems on my laptop's LCD made an interesting movie hard to watch. Also: I didn't think the heavy tints worked in practice, although I liked the idea. Subjectively, the blacks felt washed out; there wasn't enough contrast. In the bathroom, the skin tone of the girl stood out in a jarring way. Perhaps this worked better on a CRT? Perhaps this is just me? Successes: The dolly work was nice in and of itself. Editing was very nice, although I too had problems following the story well enough to be engaged, and I don't know if this was a problem with the editing, the story, or the camera work. Despite the shakyness, both shot selection and composition were generally good by me. I liked the music you chose and when you chose to use it. Blood effects were rather good, although I'd hoped for a smear or splatter on the wall behind the toilet (a quibble!). Overall: ambitious, and promising. I look forward to your next one. Michael -->>> Thanks a lot . I pushed my limits in every way, and while it may have made some errors stand out, i learned a hellovalot :) . I liked the tinting idea as well and it didnt come out exactly how i had hoped . As you said - it was a contrast issue. I need a good book about dramatic lighting i think, as my knowelge in the area is sub par. Audio was a big issue from the begining since we were shooting on location at that club and we had to ADR a lot of the dialouge. From now on i am going to pay a LOT more attention to sound. The story wasnt all there either. I wanted to do a splatter shot as well, but we have to sign a contract saying we wont use guns (This was a school project). I figured id gone over board enough. I was experimenting a lot in this film, and as a result there are two different styles in the film whcih wasnt justified in furthering story - it was, in all honesty, me just experimenting. Again thanks for al your input. The next one will be out the begining of April.